Construct your own Admissions system

[redemption]

On work experience:

There's no way for an adcomm to evaluate the quality of work one's experience. Resumes lie - ask any go-fer who's "worked" on Wall St or on the HIll or in the Peace Corps.

On the LSAT

On way or another, one has to be able to read, uunderstand and analyze text. The LSAT measures that. It ain't complicated and law schools have a right to expect that minimal skill prior to admission.

[lsatflunkie]

On work experience:

There's no way for an adcomm to evaluate the quality of work one's experience. Resumes lie - ask any go-fer who's "worked" on Wall St or on the HIll or in the Peace Corps.

On the LSAT

On way or another, one has to be able to read, uunderstand and analyze text. The LSAT measures that. It ain't complicated and law schools have a right to expect that minimal skill prior to admission.

I am saying work experience in a legal environment- perhaps with a required recommendation from that employer. 

[lsatflunkie]

oh and btw, i am shocked to see  you use the word aint!

[redemption]

Recommendations are usually worthless - everyone's "brilliant" and "great".

In a legal environment? Then everyone would start working as a paralegal after college, with those whose parents are partners at Cravath having an edge, and those who are from other backgrounds losing out.

I use ain't when I'm being cutesy. I'm from the sticks, remember? 

[lsatflunkie]

Recommendations are usually worthless - everyone's "brilliant" and "great".

In a legal environment? Then everyone would start working as a paralegal after college, with those whose parents are partners at Cravath having an edge, and those who are from other backgrounds losing out.

I use ain't when I'm being cutesy. I'm from the sticks, remember? 

Oh, I disagree about recommendations.  In fact, I think mine may be what earn me some $- 

I don't necessarily mean as a paralegal at some firm- I mean a rigorous 2 year stunt to be valued by a law school admissions person

[lsatflunkie]

Also, I think you and I speak of very different law schools.  I'm talking about the average law school- not Harvard, Yale, etc. which in my opinion, should have even stronger admissions requirements

[lsatflunkie]

  I am speaking from my personal experience with recent law school graduates and their lack of ability when it comes to certain aspects of the practice of law. While they have the skills to research an issue that arises and they have the ability to find cases on point to draft a memo of law or a motion, they sometimes lack the ability to make a simple decision on how to handle a particular situation without having some case in front of them to analyze and compare against or to the matter at hand.  I find this to be of great concern, especially since there's certainly a lot of cases of first impression- as obviously not all issues have been heard and tried.  A lawyer is supposed to be able to make quick decisions on how to handle a particular issue that arises in a moments notice- sometimes without a case to refer to or without a case bearing any comparison.  While one can pull some issue from a case not exactly on point to try to form an argument based upon that other case's issue- I think "lawyering" is more of an innate ability that is merely magnified by law school. Those that have the innate ability become the greatest lawyers. 

I wish more people understood the importance of what you just said. Maybe then we would not have so many "unhappy" lawyers out there. This has been exactly my experience in law school. Some people just naturally get it, others just naturally do not.

Some people are very good objective thinkers, they do very well on objective tests like the LSAT, where there are definite “right” and “wrong” answers. Unfortunately, law and law school are completely subjective, there are never ANY right answers, there are always two sides to every coin, and two arguments to every case. Some people naturally struggle with switching their worldview from black and white to shades of gray.

They may know the "black letter law" cold, but do poorly on the exam because they miss key issues, or fail to argue an opposing argument that they just never see. This is what separates top of the class from those ranked 20% or below. Knowing the law is not important, you can look that up and learn it as you go, applying the law, anticipating the opponent’s arguments, and persuading a judge or jury to adopt your view of the law where no law exists is what really matters in law school and in the practice of law.

Those people who do not pick up on this, and hone that skill over memorization, unfortunately, are the ones who tend to end up below the 50% mark in the class, at least the first semester. It has NOTHING to do with smarts, talent, test scores or UGPA, there are people with highs and lows in each of these traits who do or do not do well in law school. It has to do, based on my experience, in how quickly you change, adapt or grow your ability to think through a problem from ALL possible sides, not just the side you like or agree with best.

Some people are just naturally better at seeing all sides of an issue, any issue, and can argue either side with equal conviction and strength (even if they do not personally agree with it). Those are the folks, at least from what I have seen thus far, who make both the best law students, and lawyers. But unfortunately for all of us, you can’t test the subjective skills necessary to be that person, they can be learned with time, but those who posses more of them from the beginning have a big step up on the rest of us.

  So much to learn from real practice.  you may be interested in reading my solution to the LSAT process and some law school admissions solutions- 
http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,51781.msg1154711.html#new

[lsatflunkie]

Since it's related- I'll just copy/paste from my response on the other thread-

Problems with the LSAT:

The LSAC uses statistics stating correlations between the LSAT score and how someone performs during their first year of law school; however, law school grades overall for the entire 3 years negate these very correlations.

The organization which administers the LSAT is the same organization which measures the LSAT's worthiness to law schools admissions committees.  A travesty comparable to allowing students to grade their own final exams.

Law Schools are lazy and cheap.  It is a lot less expensive and much easier to sift through hundreds, or in some cases thousands, of applications simply by looking at the LSAT score.  Auto admit pile, auto deny pile- and someplace in the middle pile... and due to the US NEWS reports, many applicants don't bother applying to certain schools because they're not anywhere near the median lsat score, leaving even less applications for law schools to review.  Furthermore, those more on the median side of a law school's LSAT requirements have to wait longer for their admissions decisions; it takes a lot longer to choose amongst those in this category.  Which is also why law schools offer full scholarships to those with super high LSAT scores- getting the applications out of their admissions office much quicker and moving them up on the US News rankings list.

The LSAT fails to test drive, organizational ability, judgment,common sense, oral skills, self-discipline, practicality, character and maturity, listening ability, perseverance, patience, idealism, creativity, personality, handling clients and leadership.

My Solution:

Show the correlations between LSAT scores and performance over 3 (or 4) years of one's law school grades.  Show correlations between LSAT scores and bar passage rates; Show correlations between LSAT scores and success as attorneys.  Measurement of success to be non-elitist- measuring one's success by value to society rather than monetary earnings- ya, I know- possilby a very subjective measurement...but better then what there is currently.

Establish a separate organization who will be responsible for measuring the correlation between LSAT Scores and law school success (as related to solution above.)Perhaps an organization of non-attorneys merely measuring LSAT scores vs. overall grades and then measuring success (again, success measured by values other than monetary).  This organization would have to be carefully monitored as to ensure bribery is limited. 

Re-evaluate the LSAT and what it measures.   It doesn't measure ability; it measures skills.  Create a test that is much more related to the practice of law, rather than what a student may face during their first year of law school.  A test that perhaps measures one's listening abilities, social abilities and oral abilities.  One that measures drive and character.  Perhaps include a more stringent written section- essay form based upon testing whether or not a candidate can articulate 2 sides of an argument without forming an opinion on which argument is better. 

And, finally, my most stringent and painful change, instead of it taking 3 years for law school, make it 4 or 5 years.  The first one or two years consisting of placements of all applicants into legal aid societies and domestic violence clinics across the country.  Giving each applicant the opportunity to experience the lowest level of legal practice- that is lowest in monetary value. Have them experience the drudgery of law in its best and worst capacities. Establish clinics for 1L's to be side by side with the 5Ls in their clinics (in my institution).  The professors supervising the 5L's would give the responsibility of overseeing these 1Ls' to  the 5L's and it would be part of their passing grade.  Utilize the 1L's in a capacity as a legal assistant- or an apprentice of sorts.  Having this model, in my opinion, would weed out the many practicing attorneys who despise what they do- it would weed out those that fail as legal assistants.  Those that get through the 1 or 2 years of this, would be tested based upon their performance of specified tasks and then admitted or rejected based upon their individual performance.

I'm no educator, so I have no theory on the structure of the aforementioned- but I'm fairly certain legal scholars could conjure up such a process without it being biased or elitist.  perhaps?

[Yale College Inferno]

Are the only people who think that the LSAT has significant, legitimate value the ones who did well on it?

[lsatflunkie]

Are the only people who think that the LSAT has significant, legitimate value the ones who did well on it?

I am not sure, but most likely.  I, on the otherhand, have felt this way about the LSAT for the past 10 years.  I've only taken a real lsat once and that was this past, February.